While it is true that an intelligent capitalist could utilise Marx's analysis of capitalism in order to avert the inherently self-destructive tendencies of capitalism, to go from that to saying that Marx supported capitalism as anything else than a necessary step towards communism is kind of foolish. It seems to overlook the fact that Marx also co-authored the Communist Manifesto which is anything but a eulogy of capitalism. It seems to overlook the fact that Marx was a socialist and a communist. If he wasn't then I doubt his analysis would end with the destruction of capitalism. On the contrary, his fairy tale would have ended with a capitalist fantasy land of unlimited abundance (like all capitalist theorists fairy tales tend to do).

I had the joy of being taught Marx by Marxist social scientists, but my real education on Marx and Marxism came via leftist study groups and activism. I used to read Hegel for fun. Can you imagine that? What was I thinking of???

gregkavarnos wrote:While it is true that an intelligent capitalist could utilise Marx's analysis of capitalism in order to avert the inherently self-destructive tendencies of capitalism, to go from that to saying that Marx supported capitalism as anything else than a necessary step towards communism is kind of foolish. It seems to overlook the fact that Marx also co-authored the Communist Manifesto which is anything but a eulogy of capitalism. It seems to overlook the fact that Marx was a socialist and a communist. If he wasn't then I doubt his analysis would end with the destruction of capitalism. On the contrary, his fairy tale would have ended with a capitalist fantasy land of unlimited abundance (like all capitalist theorists fairy tales tend to do).

I had the joy of being taught Marx by Marxist social scientists, but my real education on Marx and Marxism came via leftist study groups and activism. I used to read Hegel for fun. Can you imagine that? What was I thinking of???

The manifesto is peripheral in the light of the grundrisse. The analytical system Marx worked on,and never finished before he died was revolutionary, just not in the way we usually associate revolution with Marx.

When it comes to the manifesto, just remember that the only reason it became popular was because of marxists. That, and the fact that Marx himself said "I am not a Marxist."

His real contribution was an apparently insightful groundwork that allowed other thinkers on the left to build realistic forecasts of how caPitalism would evolve and the political ramifications of it. That's a major difference between Marx and Marxism. Invariably, marxists tend to get caught up in a bunch of political nonsense that have nothing to do with Marx.

I know what the first international was, I'm just poo-pooing what I think is your uninformed interpretation of what marx's role there was. which I believe was as more of a reporter and observer than some cult personality. But then again, I wasn't there, and I haven't read anything beyond his writings. So obviously he's going to sound like a reporter to me.

I was mentored by a wonderful activist who had a PhD in social sciences from NYU. Name Carol Cina. Read her doctoral disertation. Called "Social Science for Whom" - brilliant marxian [not "Marxist"] structural analysis of social science itself. Inspired by the fact that in the 60's, in her social science text books, flip to the front and you see "research paid for by department of defense."

She argued that social sceince was created by the ruling class as a method for probing a population to find out how little you have to give them so that they don't rebel

see, that's the marxian-ism that I'm famuiliar with as genuine. It's blunt, rational, and may be interpreted as incendiary, but in the end it only diagnoses. It's not a truth like the Dharma, which diagnoses and treats. People think marx was perscribing something, when he really didn't. He was just good at taking notes,.

I don't know who you are arguing with here but I didn't say anything about some cult personality or Marx's role. So reserve your straw men for someone or somewhere else, please. I only said that your classification of him as "just a social critic", then later as a journalist, is wrong. Your objection to what I wrote on the significance of Marx in different sciences misses the point entirely.

Either a) you just don't know basic logic or argument, or b) you just tried your luck. I'm guessing B.

I don't care about Marx or what you claim about him or anyone else. What upset me is just your posing and pretending to be an expert. In the end that probably means that I'm just too old for this sort of college student talk. And I won't disturb you again.

I know what the first international was, I'm just poo-pooing what I think is your uninformed interpretation of what marx's role there was. which I believe was as more of a reporter and observer than some cult personality. But then again, I wasn't there, and I haven't read anything beyond his writings. So obviously he's going to sound like a reporter to me.

I was mentored by a wonderful activist who had a PhD in social sciences from NYU. Name Carol Cina. Read her doctoral disertation. Called "Social Science for Whom" - brilliant marxian [not "Marxist"] structural analysis of social science itself. Inspired by the fact that in the 60's, in her social science text books, flip to the front and you see "research paid for by department of defense."

She argued that social sceince was created by the ruling class as a method for probing a population to find out how little you have to give them so that they don't rebel

see, that's the marxian-ism that I'm famuiliar with as genuine. It's blunt, rational, and may be interpreted as incendiary, but in the end it only diagnoses. It's not a truth like the Dharma, which diagnoses and treats. People think marx was perscribing something, when he really didn't. He was just good at taking notes,.

I don't know who you are arguing with here but I didn't say anything about some cult personality or Marx's role. So reserve your straw men for someone or somewhere else, please. I only said that your classification of him as "just a social critic", then later as a journalist, is wrong. Your objection to what I wrote on the significance of Marx in different sciences misses the point entirely.

Either a) you just don't know basic logic or argument, or b) you just tried your luck. I'm guessing B.

I don't care about Marx or what you claim about him or anyone else. What upset me is just your posing and pretending to be an expert. In the end that probably means that I'm just too old for this sort of college student talk. And I won't disturb you again.

Best wishesLars

Wow. That was surprisingly laden with judgement and dismissiveness, I mean, for a Buddhist.

I'm sorry, apparently old man, but your romantic interpretation of Karl Marx as an activist or something really does remind me of the way Russian icons are lost to view in overlays of gold and jewels.

I'm not incorrect in my characterization, you're merely under some mass delusion propagated by the political left wing and hippies who never take the time to acquaint themselves with the real Marx- the academic, family man and humanist.

...and to think all I was attacking was the romantic perception of Marx as some prophet of socialism. Which he was NOT. Then I get lambasted by some cranky old coot for "college student" talk? Youth in revolt! Can't trust nobody over thirty I guess.

Beatzen wrote:The manifesto is peripheral in the light of the grundrisse. The analytical system Marx worked on,and never finished before he died was revolutionary, just not in the way we usually associate revolution with Marx.

What are you talking about? The Grundrisse was just Marx's notes for Capital.

... the manifesto, just remember that the only reason it became popular was because of marxists.

I think you may find that it was popular because it was a valid, intelligent and digestible critique of capitalism and an outline for a new (and theoretically better) society. Don't forget that it was written in 1848. There were no Marxists in 1848! I mean Capital wasn't even published until 1867.

His real contribution was an apparently insightful groundwork that allowed other thinkers on the left to build realistic forecasts of how caPitalism would evolve and the political ramifications of it. That's a major difference between Marx and Marxism. Invariably, marxists tend to get caught up in a bunch of political nonsense that have nothing to do with Marx.

How can Marxism have nothing to do with Marx??? Marx outlined the internal inconsistencies that would cause capitalism to collapse, if your pro-capitalist sensibilities only allow you to perceive a pro-capitalist reading of Marx as valid Marxism (as if capitalism is not political nonsense) then that is your problem. But please don't try to pass off your blinkered view as the only true view.

The irony is Buddha was more Communist than China ever was. He was a filthy rich Prince who gave up everything to start a communist collective. He ignored the previous ranks, titles and wealth of his followers. It was like joining a union, perhaps the first one. Once you were a monk time in was what gave you your rank. You were also promised a job for life.

China should fear real Buddhism. But the politics of the Potala is far removed from what the Buddha had in mind. Tulku's lived like kings and eventually ruled just like them. Once some monks were better than others and lived in palaces can we really call it Buddhism?

Calling the Buddha a commie maybe abit one sided know wat im sayin? Your only looking at the Monastics who have the right conditions to become Arhats.

He also supported ethical kings and rich people to keep doin wat they do best (earning money and leadin da people)! Not to mention encouraging people to work hard and take personal responsibility for their lives rather than "fighting against oppressors".

Why should China "fear Buddhism"?! Buddhism is on the rise in China, and because the culture is so deeply rooted, it's very easy for people to believe, most of those homeboys won't even have to go through the "disbelief in rebirth" obstruction. Demonising China and refuse to it's improvement isn't helping.

Please don't forget that China's Buddhist roots are even earlier than Tibet! And it's survived in a metroplitan environment dynasty after dyansty. Please don't buy into the whole "Hiphop is dead" stories about Chinese Buddhism.

Perhaps it is a projection but it is based on your statements and analysis of the content of Marxs work.

1. Marx wouldn't have supported bolshevism, stalinism or Maoism, or even that weird dent xiaopingism china's been pulling since the seventies.

This is just your opinion but the fact that he co authored the Communist Manifesto and was present at the First International seem to disprove part of your theory. I say part because I also believe that Marx would not have supported the authoritarian tendencies of the abovementioned form of govenment.

2. His great contributions were academic, and somehow pig headed leftists pirated his name. No, I am not right wing.

Though he was an academic it seems unlikely that he made all the effort just so that pig headed academic can sit around in ivory towers intellectually masturbating over the contents of his writings. It seems to me that you have no problem with capitalists utilising his analysis to plug the leaks in capitalism so why do you have problems with leftists using it to pick at the fabric so that it falls apart faster?

3. Without grundrisse, luxemburg wouldn't have written her own ground breaking projections on capitalism and the geopolitical conflicts to be caused by competing models of it.

So what? Now you are going to say that Luxemburg was not a Marxist, a leftist and a revolutionary?

rosa-luxemburg.jpg (135.3 KiB) Viewed 1981 times

4. Most people would be disenchanted and bored with Marx if they let go of the myth of him as some kind of superhero. That's just an old-left artifact from a time long past.

Have you read Marx? Even when I was a frothing leftist he was a boring tedious and repetitive read (I am talking about Capital, yes that's right I even read Capital, well the first volume...). If he hadn't left the outlines for Capital (Grundrisse) and the Communist Manifesto I doubt anybody would have bothered to read him (except some ivory tower types). It seems to me you haven't even read Grundrisse. I reccomend Grundrisse and then maybe Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse by Antonio Negri and maybe some Gramsci.

And Greg, marxists aren't Marxian. That's the difference.

You're not 100% correct here but the basic jist for me is that a Marxian is basically somebody that is just one consonant away (a "t" to be exact) from living on a space craft.

I think your portrayal of Marx as the super hero of the first international is false. What's more, by advocating public investment of surplus capital back into the productive means, he was "stopping up the holes" in capitalism.

Read "call me Ishmael.". Marx was good at describing the structure of the cage, but in the end he offered no alternative to industrial capitalism. :p

There's no other point to reading Marx than for intellectual masturbation. And I have serious doubts about what seems to be your opinion that the man who was Marx was something akin to a kind of French radical. The man was not a radical. He was deeply steeped in the orthodox philosophical culture of German scholarship. The most radical thing he did was flip hegel's dialectic upside down. Just because socialists ran with that after the fact does not give credence to Marx possessing superpowers.

Beatzen wrote:Marx was good at describing the structure of the cage, but in the end he offered no alternative to industrial capitalism. :p

Right, he thought the cage was progressive.

His nineteenth scientism is quaint and charming, but utterly irrelevant.

I much prefer Naess.

N

I think there's philosophical value to dialectical materialism insofar as it liberates the individual from an almost mystical notion of the essential nature of things, but namdrol's right in that western sciences and philosophy have evolved in the few hundred years since he was alive. The only reason his serious acolytes like rosa luxemburg are relevant is that their trotskyite projections turned out true considering the cold war and it's "aftermath"

This whole conversation was started by someone impuning the purity of Chinese communism. I went so far as to say that the common misconception of "Marxism" as even the most educated westerners see it, doesn't actually exist.

Even though I dismiss leftists who see Marx as a prophet of socialism, I do see some validity to observations that free market capitalism isn't sustainable. It would be an interesting social experiment to see a sustainable industrial model wrought for mass welfare... But I won't hold my breath.

Years of living on and off the streets have shown me that the real root cause of peoples' material suffering is greed and apathy toward others' circumstances. But you can't engineer enlightenment.

Beatzen wrote:Years of living on and off the streets have shown me that the real root cause of peoples' material suffering is greed and apathy toward others' circumstances. But you can't engineer enlightenment.

Holland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia do a very, very good job.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

His nineteenth scientism is quaint and charming, but utterly irrelevant.

I much prefer Naess.

I would not say that a class analysis is "utterly irrelevant", his linear and industrialist analysis of social evolution is definitely outdated/irrelevant.

I also like Arne Naess, but let's not forget that he was born 30 years after Marx's death and that during the period that Marx was living and writing there was no Ecological movement. The closest philosophical ideal was, maybe, the late Romanticist movement and their idealisation of nature and natural forces.

I think class has become more relevant because of ecological problems. In the 1980's environmentalism was a huge issue. Things were moving very fast to curb emissions. Then I believe the global economic collapse of the time did not happen entirely by accident. Once people were worried about the economy no one cared about global warming anymore. Corporations then had 20 years to look for new homes in countries that had no environmental regulations .

Now transnational corporations pay scientists to produce misinformation about environmental issues to muddy the waters. They also own 99% of the media and most politicians. If people don't understand how the upper classes are continuously performing information warfare environmentalism will never take off. The changes to our environment will cost many people their lives. I think the language and framing of Marx is the best way to fight the global energy monopoly in the West. Once they and the misinformation they produce is discredited the sense of self preservation will kick in and incremental steps can be taken. If their is still time of course.